Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Vs. 1 - Closely following the Spirit’s acknowledgement of Jesus, the Spirit directs Jesus to go into this wilderness where He would be tempted by Satan.
Wisdom, Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Catholics also have longer versions of Esther and Daniel.
Off the top of my head,
In 2 Maccabees chapter 12, they pray for the souls of the dead. This passage is significant in that it contradicts justification by faith alone, and supports the idea of purgatory.
Another point is in Tobit 12:12 where the angel Raphael presents Tobit's and Sarah's prayers to God. This is an example of intercessory prayer instead of praying "direct to God".
Biilb, I hear what you are saying, but how do you reconcile these teachings with Paul's teaching that we are justified by faith, and not works?
A careful reading of Galatians will show that Paul is using works of the law to refer to the law of circumcision.
He says in Galatians 5:2, "Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you."
Paul’s opponents in Galatia wanted to bring the Gentile Christians back into the Old Testament law. These are the works of the law that Paul is saying have no place in our justification.
Paul is saying in essence that Gentile Christians do not have to be circumcised and live like Jewish Christians in order to be saved.
Paul also speaks about Christians fulfilling the law by following the command to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14).
He then explains that we must show the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:16–26) and bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:1ff) as a way of fulfilling the "law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2).
All Paul’s teaching comes down to this: Our own works can never justify us, but works that grow out of faith in Christ are part of our justification.
That’s why Paul says in Philippians 2:12 you must "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." And that squares with James’s teaching that works that grow from faith justify.
A careful reading of Galatians will show that Paul is using works of the law to refer to the law of circumcision.
He says in Galatians 5:2, "Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you."
Paul’s opponents in Galatia wanted to bring the Gentile Christians back into the Old Testament law. These are the works of the law that Paul is saying have no place in our justification.
Paul is saying in essence that Gentile Christians do not have to be circumcised and live like Jewish Christians in order to be saved.
Paul also speaks about Christians fulfilling the law by following the command to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14).
He then explains that we must show the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:16–26) and bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:1ff) as a way of fulfilling the "law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2).
All Paul’s teaching comes down to this: Our own works can never justify us, but works that grow out of faith in Christ are part of our justification.
That’s why Paul says in Philippians 2:12 you must "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." And that squares with James’s teaching that works that grow from faith justify.
dear billb,
I agree. According to James, we are justified by works, because faith without works is dead! Where are we disagreeing? And by the way, I know Luther didn't care for the book of James.
At the end of the day, the reason for the Reformation was the debate over justification. If that is no longer an issue, I have to be Catholic," Beckwith said. "It seems to me that if there is not a very strong reason to be Protestant, then the default position should be to belong to the historic church."
Francis Beckwith, former head of the Evangelical Theology Soceity
Then I could turn around and say the Bible you're thumping was assembled by the Catholic church and you're appealing to a Catholic tradition.
The Catholic Church was the only Christian Church in existence at that time. It was the universal church and NOT the Roman Catholic Church that compiled the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it? If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Timothy 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married."
If the Bible is a Catholic book :-
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billb7581
Not only that, Luther added the word "alone" to Romas 3, so the idea of Sola Fide is a manmade tradition also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billb7581
In 2 Maccabees chapter 12, they pray for the souls of the dead. This passage is significant in that it contradicts justification by faith alone, and supports the idea of purgatory.
When Martin Luther carried out the unthinkable task of translating the Latin Vulgate into German, the common language at the time, he added the German word “allien” to this verse. Allien is German for “alone”. Luther translated Romans 3:28 this way, “…for we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone, apart from works of the law.” Luther comments on his actions and says “it was to emphasize the meaning of the verse” .
Luther well knew that he added “allien”. He didn’t just add it and keep quiet about it like an occultist would. The important thing to note is that the doctrine of justification through faith alone or by works and faith was the most pressing issue during the time of the Reformation! Further, Luther says that even if we leave out the word “alone” , Paul still makes the distinction between a justification which is by faith as opposed to works. Paul does not attribute anything to works for our justification but attributes all to faith.
Besides, if Luther’s Sola Fide was a nothing more than a random man-made idea, then why is your pope agreeing with him now ?
Like the tradition of including the deutrocannonical books?
Out of the 350 Old Testament citations in the New Testament, 300 come from the Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical books.
The deuterocanonical books were clearly accepted by Christ and his apostles in the Septuagint as they were by the earliest Christians. The primary definition of the Bible as we know it includes these books and for a millennia all Christians accepted it. Why did it change?
Martin Luther had invented a new theology that was not consistent with Scripture as we know it, so he had to remove these books in order to make his bogus theology palatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billb7581
the New Testament actually refers to the seven “extra” deuterocanonical books, which means that the NT authors approved of these seven books. For example:
o Heb 11:35 refers to 2 Mac 6:18-7:42
o 1 Pet 1:6-7 refers to Wisdom 3:5-6
o Rom 1:18-32 refers to Wisdom 13:1-9
The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books. Further, there are many proven errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals. Here are a few websites that demonstrate these errors : http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm http://www.johnankerberg.org/ankerberg-articles/apocrypha.html
The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. While many Catholics accepted the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals previously, the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Suicide is also being commended in 2 Maccabees 14: 41, 42, and the writer apologizes for defects. Some of what the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals say is true and correct. However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books was viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.
The Apocrypha would be covered under the evidence for the Bible if its writings were truly inspired - but evidence seems to indicate that they are not. In the Bible we find prophets of God whose messages are ratified by miracles or prophecy that comes true, and whose message is immediately accepted by the people (Deut 31:26; Josh 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Daniel 9:2; Col. 4:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16). What we find in the apocrypha is just the opposite - no apocryphal book was written by a prophet; in fact one book specifically states that it is not inspired ( 1 Maccabees 9:27) ! None of these books were included in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no ratification of the authors of any apocryphal book. No apocryphal book is cited as authoritative by later Biblical writers. There is no fulfilled prophecy in any apocryphal book.
The books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus. Yet they were not quoted as Scripture by Him or the apostles, nor included in New Testament. With over 260 quotations from passages in the Old Testament in the New Testament, there is not one quotation from the Apocryphal writings.
The Apocrypha was never accepted by the Jewish community which kept the canon to 39 in number, nor did the Church at large accept them as being inspired. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia 90 AD did not recognize it as inspired. Only later in history did the Catholic church officially have them became part of the canon in as a polemic to counter the reformation which was challenging the church’s practice on indulgences and helped support the church's doctrine of purgatory. It was in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture.
It’s not that Luther removed these books, but it’s the Catholic Church that included it rather late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billb7581
Well to hear you tell it, Jesus came to earth, started a church which immediately went south and the Holy Spirit went on sabbatical for 1500 years . So for 1500 years, maybe the "Real Christian Church" went into hiding while the false Catholic church flourished and spread. (Incidentally changing the course of history of the civilized world along the way.)
The only problem with this was that if you really believed that the early church apostasized, then the Gates of Hell did indeed prevail against it and Jesus didn't know what He was talking about
Not immediately. Sometime between 590AD when the Roman Catholic Church was established and 1500 years when Luther had to finally step in to make his stand against the corrupt practices of the Catholic church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billb7581
Another point is in Tobit 12:12 where the angel Raphael presents Tobit's and Sarah's prayers to God. This is an example of intercessory prayer instead of praying "direct to God".
Intercessory prayer means we pray for or on behalf of somebody. We intercede with and for living people, not dead people and angels. The Bible says that that when we pray, angels that have been assigned to us go into action.
Psalm 103:20
Bless the LORD, you His angels, Who excel in strength, who do His word, Heeding the voice of His word.
Psalm 91:11
For He shall give His angels charge over you, To keep you in all your ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billb7581
Another way of looking at it, if Timothy said all scripture is profitable ~ 67 AD, he was talking about the Septuagint which was compiled ~300 BC. How could he be refering to a Bible compiled 1500 years after the fact LOL.
The word apocrypha means “hidden”. The fact that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha only proves that the Apocrypha was not even regarded as scripture. There are over 260 quotations and 370 allusions of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and not one of them is from these books. Though there are several Old Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, i.e., Joshua, Judges, Esther, etc. , these books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews, whereas the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the apocrypha in it. The books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jewish Church and was not part of what Paul referred to as “all scripture” in 2 Timothy 3:16. This is significant because of what Paul says :- "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God," (Romans 3:1-2). Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. This means that they are the ones who understood what inspired Scriptures were and they never accepted the apocrypha.
Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’" (Luke 11:51).
The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jeremiah 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. 2 Chronicles 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.
This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Bible today. This was the arrangement that Jesus was referring to when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed -- as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the apocryphal and was not including it in his reference.
Luke 24:44
Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Notice what is missing from this endorsement. Missing is the apocrypha -- those books known as the Deutero-canonicals. They were not considered to be a part of the Word of God. Jesus, who quoted from every section of Old Testament Scripture, never once quoted from the apocrypha. Neither did any of His disciples.
Besides, The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.
- Ecclesiasticus 25:19 : Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.
- Ecclesiasticus 25:24 : From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
- Ecclesiasticus 22:3 : It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
(1 Maccabees 4:46)
And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them.
(1 Maccabees 9:27)
And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel.
(1 Maccabees 14:41)
And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billb7581
I find it ironic that the idea of solo scriptura is found nowhere in scripture.
I also find it ironic that the idea of Catholic Traditions is found nowhere in scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billb7581
Luther had to change scripture to force fit the ideas of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide to it.
On the contrary, he did the right thing because evidently it’s in the Protestant Churches today that God is showing up big time, not to mention, in many of our personal lives too. Even if all of my above theological arguments are proved false, personal testimonies alone are sufficient to defend the belief of Sola Scriptura !
Last edited by ShalomPeace; 07-11-2009 at 07:16 AM..
The Catholic Church was the only Christian Church in existence at that time. It was the universal church and NOT the Roman Catholic Church that compiled the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it? If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Timothy 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married."
If the Bible is a Catholic book :-
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible.
When Martin Luther carried out the unthinkable task of translating the Latin Vulgate into German, the common language at the time, he added the German word “allien” to this verse. Allien is German for “alone”. Luther translated Romans 3:28 this way, “…for we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone, apart from works of the law.” Luther comments on his actions and says “it was to emphasize the meaning of the verse” .
Luther well knew that he added “allien”. He didn’t just add it and keep quiet about it like an occultist would. The important thing to note is that the doctrine of justification through faith alone or by works and faith was the most pressing issue during the time of the Reformation! Further, Luther says that even if we leave out the word “alone” , Paul still makes the distinction between a justification which is by faith as opposed to works. Paul does not attribute anything to works for our justification but attributes all to faith.
Besides, if Luther’s Sola Fide was a nothing more than a random man-made idea, then why is your pope agreeing with him now ?
The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books. Further, there are many proven errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals. Here are a few websites that demonstrate these errors : http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm http://www.johnankerberg.org/ankerberg-articles/apocrypha.html
The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. While many Catholics accepted the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals previously, the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Suicide is also being commended in 2 Maccabees 14: 41, 42, and the writer apologizes for defects. Some of what the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals say is true and correct. However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books was viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.
The Apocrypha would be covered under the evidence for the Bible if its writings were truly inspired - but evidence seems to indicate that they are not. In the Bible we find prophets of God whose messages are ratified by miracles or prophecy that comes true, and whose message is immediately accepted by the people (Deut 31:26; Josh 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Daniel 9:2; Col. 4:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16). What we find in the apocrypha is just the opposite - no apocryphal book was written by a prophet; in fact one book specifically states that it is not inspired ( 1 Maccabees 9:27) ! None of these books were included in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no ratification of the authors of any apocryphal book. No apocryphal book is cited as authoritative by later Biblical writers. There is no fulfilled prophecy in any apocryphal book.
The books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus. Yet they were not quoted as Scripture by Him or the apostles, nor included in New Testament. With over 260 quotations from passages in the Old Testament in the New Testament, there is not one quotation from the Apocryphal writings.
The Apocrypha was never accepted by the Jewish community which kept the canon to 39 in number, nor did the Church at large accept them as being inspired. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia 90 AD did not recognize it as inspired. Only later in history did the Catholic church officially have them became part of the canon in as a polemic to counter the reformation which was challenging the church’s practice on indulgences and helped support the church's doctrine of purgatory. It was in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture.
It’s not that Luther removed these books, but it’s the Catholic Church that included it rather late.
Not immediately. Sometime between 590AD when the Roman Catholic Church was established and 1500 years when Luther had to finally step in to make his stand against the corrupt practices of the Catholic church.
Intercessory prayer means we pray for or on behalf of somebody. We intercede with and for living people, not dead people and angels. The Bible says that that when we pray, angels that have been assigned to us go into action.
Psalm 103:20
Bless the LORD, you His angels, Who excel in strength, who do His word, Heeding the voice of His word.
Psalm 91:11
For He shall give His angels charge over you, To keep you in all your ways.
The word apocrypha means “hidden”. The fact that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha only proves that the Apocrypha was not even regarded as scripture. There are over 260 quotations and 370 allusions of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and not one of them is from these books. Though there are several Old Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, i.e., Joshua, Judges, Esther, etc. , these books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews, whereas the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the apocrypha in it. The books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jewish Church and was not part of what Paul referred to as “all scripture” in 2 Timothy 3:16. This is significant because of what Paul says :- "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God," (Romans 3:1-2). Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. This means that they are the ones who understood what inspired Scriptures were and they never accepted the apocrypha.
Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’" (Luke 11:51).
The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jeremiah 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. 2 Chronicles 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.
This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Bible today. This was the arrangement that Jesus was referring to when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed -- as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the apocryphal and was not including it in his reference.
Luke 24:44
Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Notice what is missing from this endorsement. Missing is the apocrypha -- those books known as the Deutero-canonicals. They were not considered to be a part of the Word of God. Jesus, who quoted from every section of Old Testament Scripture, never once quoted from the apocrypha. Neither did any of His disciples.
Besides, The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.
- Ecclesiasticus 25:19 : Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.
- Ecclesiasticus 25:24 : From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
- Ecclesiasticus 22:3 : It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
(1 Maccabees 4:46)
And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them.
(1 Maccabees 9:27)
And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel.
(1 Maccabees 14:41)
And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet.
I also find it ironic that the idea of Catholic Traditions is found nowhere in scripture.
On the contrary, he did the right thing because evidently it’s in the Protestant Churches today that God is showing up big time, not to mention, in many of our personal lives too. Even if all of my above theological arguments are proved false, personal testimonies alone are sufficient to defend the belief of Sola Scriptura !
Are you a lawyer? Because no one will respond to all this straw. It's like burying somebody under mounds of paper.
Sola (pick and choosa) Scriptura....good luck with that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"
